Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Peter Kupfer (pkupfer_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:52:22 GMT

Androcles wrote:
<Snip>

I said:
>>There are some problems with your set-up (and I am not doubting we
>>could
>>do it.)
>>
>>A GPS would have to move faster than an airplane than airplane because
>>it would have to cover more distance because it further from the Earth.
>>According to <<http://tinyurl.com/3jh2t>> GPS orbit at 12,000 miles
>>above the Earth. So there distance would be 2*3.14*12000 = 75360 miles.
>>Speed would be 6280 mph. While this may seem fast, it is only 6 times
>>faster than the equator and it is .000009378c. So, any relativistic
>>effects if would feel would be minimal, but still more than the
>>airplane. I would imagine though, the clocks are updated by the radio
>>wave fairly often so it would be hard to get a read on them.
>>
>>In addition to all of this when the GPS system was first implemented
>>Carol O. Alley pointed out that there would be relativistic affects on
>>the satellites. He over calculated them but, to this day GPS
>>satellites have to be corrected for the time dilation affects.
>>
>>In short, yes if the plane and the GPS satellite are at different
>>speeds and the clocks are precise enough to measure the relativistic effects,
>>then they would be different.
>>
>>Did Wilson disagree with that? What was the point of this question?

You said:
> Above the GPS constellation at 22,300 miles are the communications
> satellites. We aim dish antennae at them.
> Would they have "relativistic effects" more than the plane too?
> Let's think about that for a moment.
> By definition, 360 degrees equates to 24 hours,
> on earth as it does in heaven. Forgive us this day our daily
> dilation, as we forgive those that dilate against us.
> If the satellite advances eastward or retards westward, it also changes
> its time, doesn't it? When a geosynchronous satellite is over Tokyo,
> does it have the same time as a similar satellite over the East Coast
> of the USA?

Yes, if you are looking at GMT or some sort of universal time, because
they have devices to account for the relativistic effects.

> Let us take things to the extreme for the moment and imagine
> the satellite is going so fast that its clock slows to half speed.
> This happens to be 0.866c and it would disobey Newtonian law
> by hurtling off into space, but you've not accepted those laws anyway.
> For the purpose of this demonstration we'll assume gravity
> is strong enough to keep the satellite in a circular orbit.
> Let the radius of the orbit be r, and the distance be 2.pi.r.
> On Earth we determine its speed as 2 t, and since speed is
> distance / time we have v = 2.pi.r/2t = pi r./t distances per time.

If *v = 2t* then in the equation *v = d/t* wouldn't you get *2t =
2.pi.r/t*? Or did you mean that t = 2t?

> The satellite computes the same distance = 2pi.r/t such that u = 2v,
> does it not?

What in the world is *u = 2v*?

> Yet nowhere in relativity are this different velocities taken into account.
> What we do have is length contraction, however, and since
> u = v, it follows that the R = r/2.

*u = v*? Didn't u just = 2v?

I think your point is that since we are moving at .866c then the length
contraction would also be 1/2. The problem with your set-up is that the
satellite is not moving in the direction of the radius, so the radius
wouldn't have this length contraction affect.

> In other words, the satellite operates at a different altitude in its
> FoR than it does in Earth's FoR.

No.

> Setting r at geosynchronous distance (we'll speed up the Earth's
> rate of rotation to match) we send a radio signal to the satellite
> which takes (say) 20 microseconds to reach it, and it then returns
> the signal in 10 microseconds because it is only r/2 from the
> Earth and the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.

No.

Unfortunately still that you ignore the *reality* of the situation that
we have to correct for time dilation in the GPS or else it WON'T work.

>>>Show me where it says the movement through the Earth's magnetic field
>>>was taken into account, I can't find it.
>>
>>I repeat, <<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html>>
>
> Show me where the Earth's magnetic field was taken into account on that
> page, because I repeat, I can't find it. Either cut and paste it here, or admit
> you have not got that taken into account.

"Haefele and R. Keating took atomic clocks on airliners traveling both
East (with the Earth rotating underneath them, these are slow frames)
and West (these planes have the Earth's rotation speed plus their own,
and return to where they came from). Apart from some complications due
to the *gravitational field variations and their acceleration (which are
dealt with by general relativity)*, this is like the twin paradox, and
it gave results in agreement with the relativistic prediction."

>><Snip the data from the H&K experiment.>
>>
>>>>(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox)
>>>
>>>Ever considered the uncertainties might be more that 25 ns?
>>>No, of course not. You take it on faith.
>>
>>No, I have not. Why would they be?
>>
>>Regardless the second clock gained 273 ns, which far exceeds the
>>uncertainty.
>
>
> So the uncertainly is greater that 273 ns, but you've taken the lying 25
> ns on faith!
> Time dilation is impossible, it also changes the speed and speed changes
> are not accounted for in relativity. If the clock took longer at the same
> speed it must have travelled further. Where did the extra distance come from?

Where did you extrapolate that the uncertainty is 273ns? The uncertainty
is 25ns. What I said was that the result was 273ns, so even if the
uncertainty was a little bigger than 25ns, the results are still bigger
than the margin of error.

>>>How about reading this:
>>>8. Experiments Which Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR
>>>It is clear that most if not all of these experiments have
>>>difficulties which are unrelated to SR. In some cases the
>>>inconsistent experiment has been carefully repeated and been shown to
>>>be in error.
>>
>>Which experiment from that list are you claiming is a good example of
>>relativity not being true?
>>
>>
>>>Did anyone ever bother to repeat Haefele and Keating to see if it was
>>>in error?
>>>
>>>Well? Did they?
>>
>>Please give me a chance to answer before you ask twice. :)
>>
>>I have no idea.
>
> Fine. So you took it on faith.

Took what on faith? I just don't know if anyone has ever tried to repeat it.

> But there are several similar experiments that have been
>>done, and since we have the situation with the GPS satellites as
>>living proof of the issue, there is no need to repeat the experiment now.
>
>
> Ok, so a GPS satellite travels a greater distance in it own FoR
> than it does in the ground FoR. Prove it.

No. But, you might measure that that it travels a different distance.

>>I don't not have the original documents because most of these studies
>>were done before I was born, and I don't have access to them, but that
>>site lists several over studies that have been done along the same
>>lines several of which have the same result.
>>
>>Additionally there is the NTS-2 Satellite that was launch in 1977
>>which after 20 days in orbit had a change in frequency of "+442.5 parts in
>>10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity
>>predicted +446.5 parts in10^12. The difference was well within the
>>accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock."
>><<http://tinyurl.com/6pdrv>>
>
> Where did the extra distance come from if it has the same v?
> If is does NOT have the same v, show me where in SR/GR the speeds
> are different.

What extra distance? It is in space so it has to get around the Earth.

The whole essence of relativity is that as you get close to c the
dilation happens. What speed different are you talking about?

>>At <<http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf>> this project includes
>>many facts and figures regarding the time dilation that occurs in real
>>objects.
>>
>>Your position and claims remind me a lot of a theory I heard about a
>>few
>>years ago called _The Vortex Theory_. They make a lot of claims with
>>no
>>experimental basis. See it at <<http://www.thevortextheory.com/>>.
>
> You want to claim a lot of theory without reasoning, too. The simple
> answer is that the clock is not keeping the accuracy claimed.
> No, I can't be bothered to read anything that you claim is ridiculous.
> You are not making a point with it.

Simple, yet wrong.

>>>No, of course not. It's whoopee! We get the result we like. Anyone
>>>else performs an experiment
>>>
>>>that disproves Einstein and it HAS to be in error. Yeah, right.
>>
>>Why don't you perform it, and when it doesn't work, write it up,
>>publish it and convince everyone. Despite your claims, you can disprove the
>>theory.
>
> Listen up, poor teacher. Don't tell me what to do. You listen to me,
> and start reasoning before you continue filling your own head and
> the heads of your pupils with nonsense. I'm telling you, got that?

Should I tremble?

I didn't *tell* you to do anything. I asked why you don't. Try answering
a question or addressing the issue every now and then.

>>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
>>>
>>>It shows time compression just be changing the angle of the beam.
>>
>>This can be explained by simple trigonometry. The speed of light is c in
>>the direction is is "shot" at. Let's say for simplicities sake the
>>angle between the light source and the ceiling of the ship is 45 degrees.
>>That would result in the following triangle.
>>
>> |\
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>>.71 c| \ c
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>> |________\
>> .71 c
>>
>>The height of the ship would have to be 1/2 the length of the ship in
>>order for this to work since the x & y velocities are equal (If the
>>angles weren't 45 this would be different). I am going to say that the
>>height of the ship is 500m and the length is 1000m. Let's assume the
>>ships have a speed of .8c since they are near the speed of light.
>>There are several reasons this experiment is flawed.
>>
>
> Yes, you are totally flawed. How the hell do you claim the ship
> has a speed of 0.8c with a diagram showing 0.71c ?
> You really are poor teacher if you think you can get that past a
> teenager, let alone me. Go and learn basic trigonometry.

*c* in this case in the triangle is the speed of light. When you release
the light at a 45 degree angle the resulting and x & y components of the
light are .71c.

The speed of the ship I set at .8c doesn't have any bearing on that
triangle.

>>1) The speed of the light in the y-direction is irrelevant in so far
>>as measuring the time as long the height/length ration is 1:2.
>
> No, poor teacher, the speed of light is (supposed to be) c in all frames
> of reference.

Yes, at the angle the speed of light is still c. The y-component is not
really important right now, because we are looking at how long it takes
the light to go from the back of the ship to the front (the x-direction).

> Not only that, but the y distance is very much relevant.
> Distance is speed * time. The length of the hypotenuse is ct and the
> y-distance is ct, so the x-distance is zero. vt = 0, hence v =0.
> I'd show you that using Einstein's math, but it is beyond your poor
> teacher's understanding.

The y-distance will not be ct, because you have to break the light into
components. The x-distance will not be 0. if it is a triangle, which is
the only result that can come from your scenario.

>
>
>> So now, you have the person in the other ship measure the time of light moving at
>> a rate of .71c. You can't treat the velocities combined like you want to.
>
> That's right, you can't.
>
>>When you shoot at an angle you have to resolve into components. The
>>astronaut on the other ship will only be able to measure how long it
>>takes the x-component of the light's speed to cover the 1000m. This
>>works out to be 4.72e-6 sec. (Which will be the same for the light to
>>move vertically also.)
>>
>>2) Now we run into problem #2, which time is the astronaut who shot
>>the
>>light going to measure. Is he going to measure the amount of time for
>>the light to move vertically, horizontally, or on an angle. Truth be
>>told, it won't matter. Since we have done the vertical and horizontal
>>measurements already, let's look at the angle. While this is highly
>>unorthodox, I think that if we find the hypotenuse of the length
>>triangle
>>it should work out. This is our triangle:
>>
>> |\
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>>500 m| \ d = 707 m (1/2 way)
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>> |________\
>> 500 m
>>So the total distance the light will travel at angle is 1414 m. If we
>>find the time for light to travel that far it is 4.71e-6 s which is
>>within rounding errors. (I can do the calculation with more precision
>>if you like.)
>>
>>So, you conclusion is wrong. In you set-up (which I think is flawed,
>>see below) the astronauts would measure the same time, not a faster or
>>slower time. I still think this conclusion is wrong/irrelevant because
>>the experiment is set up poorly.
>
>
> Oh? Really? Got it! If it doesn't produce the result you want, it was
> done poorly. You really ARE a VERY poor teacher.
> If I don't aim the beam at a perfect right-angle to get the result you
> want, I don't pass my exams, right? By aiming the beam at an angle of
> arctan(v/c) away from the direction of motion, totally destroying your
> crackpottery, I've done a poor experiment. Get thee behind me, Satan.

Right, you would fail your test. If you shot a tennis ball across with
year with a velocity of 45 m/s at an angle of 45 degrees, and I asked
you to find how far it traveled (its range) and you tried to do that
with the 45 m/s, you would get the wrong answer. You *HAVE* to break it
into components.

So, your conclusion is wrong, because you have set-up a bad experiment.
As I explained in the part you didn't read, Gardener's works because the
light travels perpendicular to the ship.

> I'm not reading the rest of your rant, you fucking hypocrite.
> Androcles.

Another unfounded claim of hypocrisy. What now? I think and I disagree,
so I am a hypocrite?

You need to address the issues, specifically at this point, the fact
that satellites have time dilation controls in them and if they didn't
they wouldn't work. Real life example!

Furthermore, what is your theory? Do you think Newtonian mechanics
explains it all? How do you balance that against MMX where we conclude
that c is constant?

Do you believe that if I am traveling at .5c and turn on a light it will
move at 1.5c?

Peter

Quantcast